by rekindling the bush-crash and destroying the economy further, republicans are hoping that they can foment more malaise and suffering in order to cement their chances of overtaking democrats in the fall.

brilliant!

if this works, soon it will be happy days for the GOP! but more suffering for people who are trying their best to look for work.

because if they do manage to scam voters into believing that they are only concerned about the deficit we can expect to see more Hoover stimulus like this….. and if the republicans are really successful- a real live depression!

Mark, I would ask you “how” as I have a hundred times before, but you continually sidestep the question by claiming ‘their hearts aren’t really in it’. In the case of the cloture vote in question, every Democrat in attendance voted Yea save Ben Nelson. What would you suggest? Waterboarding him?

Wulfgar, my friend: I have never sidestepped this question. You simply do not comprehend the answer, as politics is a mystery to you.

Here’s an example of how it works: After the health care bill had been gutted, with public option, Medicare buy-in, local options and cost controls stripped out, they were left with an industry-friendly (industry-written) bill. Democratic leadership sprung into action, with Obama and Reid pressuring, canoodling, bribing, threatening, and doing anything they could to get their 60 votes. They succeeded.

They could to as well with unemployment benefits. But they don’t. They sit back,sigh, and say “Ah well…”.

They have power, Wulfgar. They elect not to use it. In fact, Republican filibusters very much serve their interests, as it allows them to avoid passage of progressive bills, on one hand, and to blame the Republicans on the other.

Now, in the lower house, the Demcorats are pretty-much free to do anything they please, as nothing will be passed unless it passes through the 40-vote lock in the Senate. So you hear stories that the House is much more liberal than the Senate, and that Pelosi is doing a great job. Think again. There is simply no need to apply power to that body, as they area not the final word on anything.

Actually, when you assume that the interests of one group coincide with the interests of another, even though the vote shows dissimilar interest, it is a conspiracy theory. 57 Democrats voted for continuation of benefits and the jobless help bill. There were 58 in attendance. Mark would have you believe that they left Nelson to defeat a bill that the Democrats (general) wanted defeated such that they could wash their hands and cry woe. And he would have you believe that the White House is inhabited by the very dictator that the right fears, a man who can “canoodle” and “bribe” anything he wants.

That, lizard, is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theory.

I know you’re unhappy with what’s taking place. I know you’re disappointed with the administration and our Congress. You’ve well expressed so. But kindly don’t buy into the bullshit from the crack/delusion-sellers. It won’t do you any service at all.

the reason i think it’s just politics and not a conspiracy is because this is midterms and the narratives are starting to get hammered down.

that is why rahm was on this week last sunday signaling that the barton apology to BP was going to be a major feature of the democratic strategy to keep as many seats as possible. rahm even called it a gift, because that is what it was.

democrats won’t (and didn’t, though they could have) expend political capital to extend jobless benefits because they’re scared of the deficit hawks. besides, letting republicans kill this reflects bad very poorly on them, and is therefore another opportunity for democrats to depict their “opposition” in a negative light.

this is why what needs to happen won’t: short term political expediency. we need another stimulus, and increasing jobless benefits is a very effective way to do it. now is not the time to worry about the deficit, because the sort of “austerity measures” will guarantee the economic contraction is worse than need be.

our political class is totally incapable of seeing beyond the next election cycle. mark gets that. it’s not a conspiracy, it’s simply how the game is played.

See now, my friend? I laid it out, it cannot be clearer. You need only extrapolate the meaning of behavior in light of financing and other manifestations of power. It all makes sense if you can see the bigger picture.

There you go, a Fox News addict drunk with misinformation and propaganda popping off, which is why those Tea Baggers are so infuriating to normal people.

Obama has pushed through legislative achievements unheard of by a President since the days of FDR, more than sixty years ago; Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, government intervention to inject money and credit into the economy, kept the auto companies from going bust and keeping tens of millions of people employed who would have lost their jobs in related industries, drawing down one unnecessary war we went into based on lies and foolishness, killed more Al Qaida in one year than Bush in eight years and is about to put through a new energy program that is based on more than rewarding big Republican donors.

you are the one that is delusional, matthew. remember the very first promise obama made the american public? to close down gitmo. didn’t happen.

health care. yeah, mr. tepid in chief managed to squander the momentum behind the ONLY cost saving idea out there–single payer–and instead, by trying to be “bipartisan”, pushed through an industry friendly bill mandating us to buy their shitty products.

financial reform? ha, we’ll see. the reform i would like to see would include banning derivatives, reinstating glass-steagall, and requiring the big banks not to over leverage. i doubt any of that will happen.

as for the wars, well, i don’t see any evidence anything is getting “drawn down.” obama has certainly increased the use of predator drones and special ops, but to say he’s “killed more al qaida” is you, matthew, believing your own brand of propaganda. and it is you who are pathetic.

and energy is an interesting topic, considering obama had the opportunity to clean up MMS, but instead did what he’s done across the board: continue bush’s policy. that included using the role of govt oversight to rubber stamp permits for deep sea drilling.

obama is more than a tremendous disappointment. he is a spineless one term president who’s failure will usher in some right wing crazy into office in 2012.

i know, the reality is harsh for people like you to handle, matthew. i suggest you take a hit of that hopium, and that way maybe you can continue believing obama’s actions sync with his rhetoric.

Nice rant, lousy history. Hoover increased spending by 50% from 19292 to 1932 (see Table 1.1 at link below). He also shifted the federal govt from running a large budget surplus to a large deficit. In fact, FDR campaigned against Hoover’s spending and cut spending shortly after taking office (of course he later increased it by much more). The fairest overall reading is that Hoover’s and FDR’s policies were more alike than different. But again, nice rant.

The Hoover administration, equipped with belief that the cycles of prosperity and contraction were a natural phenomenon, could not have anticipated the seriousness of the Great Depression. The change in the structure of the American economy was its natural evolution. Even the courts prevented most attempts of policy makers to engage in regulation that may have prevented collapse, or at least kept the problem from becoming so pervasive. The depth of the economic collapse could not have been envisioned, nor did the tools exist to fix it had policy makers recognized it. The entrenched nature of laissez-faire economic policy prevented any such action. These factors left the Hoover administration ill equipped to deal with the Great Depression. Even with his vast experience, Herbert Hoover was doomed to failure.

the underlying principles of the republican party vis-a-vis “trust the free market and mistrust the government” was what made hoover’s policies failures. thus, the term “Hooverville” for shanty towns filled with homeless workers was coined.

the same underlying principle is guiding republicans to turn the bush-crash another great depression with the same laissez faire attitude toward corporate america.

trusting the crooks who run these companies is what is ruining our economy. they are stuffing cash in their pockets and leaving the bills for the american taxpayers to pay on wall street, the gulf and health insurance policies (literally)

the republican far right is always busy trying to rewrite history on this but the fact is Coolidge (R) caused the crash. Hoover (R) kept it going and Roosevelt (D) pulled us out of it.

***I’ve a fascination for American history, and the people who made us a success. J.P. Morgan is among the most fascinating, and he wandered into my head last night.

In 1895, with the economy hemorrhaging jobs since 1893, the US Treasury was verging on collapse. Worry that there wasn’t enough gold to back up paper scrip, caused a run on the banks. At that time, it was customary for the Treasury to hold a minimum of $100 million in gold reserves. That minimums had been breached.

President Grover Cleveland had resorted to “wishing” for a magical solution. He was not, however, willing to listen to J.P. Morgan, who, as a Wall Street banker and capitalist, was anathema to the Democrat party. Yes, them roots are deep. Morgan was however the only man on Earth who could save the day, and he knew it.

He took the train to Washington, holed up in a hotel, stating that he would not leave until Cleveland heard him out. With no option remaining, Grover finally gave Morgan the audience. In a nutshell, J.P. grabbed the President by the lapels, telling him, You nincompoop, there is but $9 million in gold in the Treasury. I know of one person who holds a draft of $10 million against treasury gold. If that draft is presented, the nation will be insolvent before 3PM. For God’s sake let me forestall this!

Cleveland, agreed to let Morgan help, even as Democrats screamed in outrage. However, the very news that Morgan was even “on the job,” was enough to calm the market and the crisis ended. Note what public confidence alone can bring about.

In 1907 the nation’s chronic gold shortage caused a run on the banks; the New York Stock Exchange was about to go belly-up. Again Morgan rallied bankers – forcing them to purchase treasury bonds. Morgan risked $60 million of his own money, but it worked. Democrats were outraged that Morgan was involved; worried that he might someday profit from the bonds he purchased. In 1910 Progressive Democrats took control of the congress, and by 1913 had given us their permanent solution. The Federal Reserve Board.***

That’s a nice little history story Swede, really. But what it isn’t is support for the fantasy you wrap around it around. The Republicants aren’t trying to summon JP Morgan. They’re flushing the country down the crapper, in hopes that they will win electoral victory. It’s about damned time that Democrats are calling them on their toilet tactics.

“They are not filibustering, they are threatening to filibuster. If they were filibustering, we’d see them standing at the podium making lame excuses for their behavior and reading from the phone book. Harry Reid won’t make them do that, so they’re very comfortable voting down cloture. The excuse is that it would jam the works and nothing would get done, but NOTHING’S GETTING DONE NOW. Worse than nothing, what does happen is watered down window dressing that a) doesn’t fix what’s wrong and b) will be conservative talking points for years, that Dem solutions don’t work.

Dems need to quit hiding behind ‘60 votes’ and either do their damn jobs or go the fuck home and make room for someone who has an interest in good government.”

I don’t care how much muck gets slung, It’ll never overcome a 60 vote majority.

Apparently, you don’t understand anything about the function of the Senate. A vote of no on cloture is a filibuster. And if you’re expecting me to defend Ried, then you’re kinda clueless.

You still haven’t addressed the larger and most significant point. Not surprising for you. The Republicants, contrary to your claim, don’t want to do or accomplish anything. As hijeans831 said: “NOTHING”S GETTING DONE NOW.” Which is exactly what you want, Swede. You’ve even admitted it many times. I don’t share your view, and really think that your kind of an ass for having it.

a phony two bit dog and pony show called america speaks is showing up in missoula tomorrow to essentially try to get ordinary folks to ask obama to gut social security and medicare in order to line the pockets of billionaire investors who want to rip america off using the same guise “balance the budget” that the republicans are touting….

if you believe this group’s agenda i could line up a poker game in heaven with this guy who i am sure will also have your best interest at heart……..

“The rigged deck approach should come as no surprise. America Speaks is largely funded by Peter G. Peterson, the investment banker billionaire who has been on a decades long crusade to gut these programs. In recent years Peterson has redoubled his efforts, committing more than a billion dollars to a wide variety of groups in addition to America Speaks. To advance his agenda Peterson has even set up a fake news service, the “Fiscal Times.” To fill the staff, Peterson’s son hired a number of reputable reporters who were displaced by the collapse of the newspaper industry.”

**At a Wednesday morning speech delivered to the National Association of Manufacturers, Vice President Cheney announced that the president would veto card-check legislation if it reached his desk. “Our administration rejects any attempt to short-circuit the rights of workers. We will defend their right to vote yes or no by secret ballot and their right to fair bargaining,” Cheney said. **

See below on this – you are misinterpreting the meaning of votes – it was likely not that close. There are not that many dependably progressive votes in the Senate.

Do you remember back when Mukasey was stuck in committee? He did not have the votes and was sunk, and then suddenly, inexplicably, two Democrats changed their votes -Feinstein and one other. The point is that they were bearded votes, available only if necessary but otherwise perceived to be liberals.

Wulfgar sir: If I explain some of this to you, you are going to get all indignant. One of the things I have noticed about you and Jay and Matt and other on the Democratic side is an inability to sniff out deceit.

I’ll give you a quote from Bob Dole and see if you can sense what he was saying -this is not verbatim, but it was his message to newly elected Senators: “You will never go wrong voting for something to fail, or against something that is going to pass.”

In other words, 57 votes means nothing if they knew the measure was going to fail. Once that is established, they are each free to vote as their record demands. That’s why all of these vote monitoring groups are fairly useless.

Lizard is much younger than you, and gets politics far more than you do.

we all need to be very concerned about the status quo stasis that mires dc. and y’all need to realize how the political back and forth between the two facades of the corporate oligarchs has completely stunted any chance that political courage could ever emanate from either poisoned pool.

for awhile now i’ve been daydreaming about alternatives, and one thing is clear: third party thinking has to be open and flexible. to that end i’ve been scheming on how to integrate libertarian strands with progressive strands to create a political platform capable of appealing to the discontents from both the right and left, but i can just envision the face-to-face interaction and the potential for blood shed. which is unfortunate.

because, as the well-designed ineptitude of our current political system becomes more and more blatantly apparent, the malcontents are drifting toward radicalized tea parties and anarchy. that is one of the major reasons i’ve been so unrelentingly critical of obama; his failure is the fractured right’s victory, and that could mean anything, a general, an alaskan ditz, or some other abomination (like action-figure jindal) in 2012.

third party thinking has to be open and flexible. to that end i’ve been scheming on how to integrate libertarian strands with progressive strands to create a political platform capable of appealing to the discontents from both the right and left, but i can just envision the face-to-face interaction and the potential for blood shed. which is unfortunate.

For what it’s worth, lizard, there is more agreement on that among Democratic leaners than what most third party thinkers are willing to allow in their special little bailiwick. That’s why Ross Perot was so appealing, before he showed himself to be kinda nuts. Nader, on the hand, was a definite ‘with us or against us’ kind of guy. That didn’t sit too well with those of us who had to listen to the incessant bleating of those who define the parties as exactly the same, and how all so stupid we were for not jumping on the bandwagon of somebody who really does agree with the authoritarian right.

We do not argue that the parties are “exactly the same.” I think you see it that way because we say things like “Coke/Pepsi” and “one party, two right wings.”

A more refined way for us to make our point would be to argue that the Democrats, while absorbing opposition to Republicans, do not do a good job of offering a clear alterantive because

1) They are financially compromised, and
2) The leadership is corrupt

We are therefore reduced to the illusion of gradualism, and the notion that given bad alternatives, the Democrats are the least bad.

There are indeed good Democrats, and I support and respect many of them, like Russ Feingold, Carolyn Maloney, Al Franken, George Miller. In Montana, there was never a better and more effective man than Tom Towe.

But as things stand, the Democrats are preventing, rather than promotion solutions. Our best ways of changing this are things like changes in voting techniques and initiatives on finance( as finance reform will never come form wtihin).

Ross Perot was not crazy, by the way. Just so’s you know. More to that story than you know about.

In 1967 animal researchers conducted an interesting experiment. Two sets of dogs were strapped into harnesses and subjected to a series of shocks. The dogs were placed in the same room.

The first set of dogs was allowed to perform a task–pushing a panel with their snouts–in order to avoid the shocks. As soon as one dog mastered the shock-avoidance technique, his comrades followed suit.

The second group, on the other hand, was placed out of reach from the panel. They couldn’t stop the pain. But they watched the actions of the first set.

Then both groups of dogs were subjected to a second experiment. If they jumped over a barrier, the dogs quickly learned, the shocks would stop. The dogs belonging to the first set all did it.

But the second-set dogs were too psychologically scarred to help themselves. “When shocked, many of them ran around in great distress but then lay on the floor and whimpered,” wrote Russell A. Powell, Diane G. Symbaluk and P. Lynne Honey in Introduction to Learning and Behavior. “They made no effort to escape the shock. Even stranger, the few dogs that did by chance jump over the barrier, successfully escaping the shock, seemed unable to learn from this experience and failed to repeat it on the next trial. In summary, the prior exposure to inescapable shock seemed to impair the dogs’ ability to learn to escape shock when escape became possible.”

The decrease in learning ability caused by unavoidable punishment leads to a condition called “learned helplessness.”

Which brings us to the midterm elections.

Battered and bruised, with no apparent way out, the American electorate has plunged into a political state of learned helplessness. They’ve voted Democratic to punish rapacious Republicans. They’ve voted Republican to get rid of do-nothing Democrats. They’ve tried staying home on Election Day. Nothing they do helps their condition. They’re flailing.

The great mass of Americans works longer hours for less pay. Until, inevitably, they get “laid off.” Is there a working- or middle-class American who hasn’t lost his job or been close to someone who got fired during the last few years? Even in 2009, when global capitalism entered its final crisis and millions of Americans were losing their homes to the same banks their taxes were paying to bail out, the world’s richest people–those with disposable wealth over $30 million–saw their assets soar by 21.5 percent.

Go ahead, little leftie: smash the windows at Starbucks in Seattle. It won’t stop transnational corporations from raping the planet and exploiting you. Enjoy your Tea Party, little rightie. It sure is cute, listening to you talk about the wee Constitution. “Your” government and the companies that own “your” leaders have your number. And they’re listening to your phone calls.

The public is now in full-fledged flailing mode. Just two years ago, you will recall, Obama and the Democrats swept into power on a platform of hope and change: hope that things might improve, by changing away from the Bushian Republicanism of the previous eight years.

Now, depending who you listen to, people have either turned against the hope and the change, or against the failure of ObamaCo to deliver it. “The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats,” says Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster.

Change from change we can’t believe in. Again.

According to the latest NBC News/Washington Post poll, this is the same electorate that “shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation’s economy and environment.” Because you know the Republicans are all about more regulation of Big Oil. And care so much about the environment.

Does your head hurt yet?

There is some good news: Three major polls find that most Americans don’t believe Obama has a plan to fix the economy. Yes, this is good news; it proves that the public isn’t totally crazy.

Like the poor Set B dogs in that 1967 experiment, Americans are running around aimlessly, veering between two parties that differ only in their degree of harm. Republicans are evil; Democrats enable it.

Next: lying on the ground and whimpering.

The way out is obvious. If a two-party corpocracy beholden to gangster capitalism is ruining your life, get rid of it.

So we are witnessing a policy long in the planning, now being unleashed in a full-court press. The rentier interests, the vested interests that a century of Progressive Era, New Deal and kindred reforms sought to subordinate to the economy at large, are fighting back. And they are in control, with their own representatives in power – ironically, as Social Democrats and Labor party leaders, from President Obama here to President Papandreou in Greece and President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Spain.

Having bided their time for the past few years the global predatory class is now making its move to “free” economies from the social philosophy long thought to have been irreversibly built into the economic system: Social Security and old-age pensions so that labor didn’t have to be paid higher wages to save for its own retirement; public education and health care to raise labor productivity; basic infrastructure spending to lower the costs of doing business; anti-monopoly price regulation to prevent prices from rising above the necessary costs of production; and central banking to stabilize economies by monetizing government deficits rather than forcing the economy to rely on commercial bank credit under conditions where property and income are collateralized to pay the interest-bearing debts, culminating in forfeitures as the logical culmination of the Miracle of Compound Interest.

This is the Junk Economics that financial lobbyists are trying to sell to voters: “Prosperity requires austerity.” “An independent central bank is the hallmark of democracy.” “Governments are just like families: they have to balance the budget.” “It is all the result of aging populations, not debt overload.” These are the oxymorons to which the world will be treated during the coming week in Toronto.

It is the rhetoric of fiscal and financial class war. The problem is that there is not enough economic surplus available to pay the financial sector on its bad loans while also paying pensions and social security. Something has to give. The commission is to provide a cover story for a revived Rubinomics, this time aimed not at the former Soviet Union but here at home. Its aim is to scale back Social Security while reviving George Bush’s aborted privatization plan to send FICA paycheck withholding into the stock market – that is, into the hands of money managers to stick into an array of junk financial packages designed to skim off labor’s savings.

so let’s recap: the neoliberals obama has assembled to enact the “austerity measures” that will exacerbate the Great Recession are the enemy of the american people, and the class warfare they are waging is just that. warfare.

Isn’t it amazing. People do not think we have propaganda in this country, but we are trained to accept military invasions of other countries as normal and necessary, and none dare speak out against it without encountering the fear mob.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a self-funded program that is breaking our back, they tell us.

It’s lunacy. And Democrats do nothing to stop it – in fact, when the time comes to privatize SS, it will be the Dems who get it done.

I have rejected the philosophy of Republicans, conservatives (though I admire them), Randians, libertarians, Democrats, and find that the world just doesn’t lend itself to pigeonholing. Does that mean that I think I know the road to truth?

I don’t suppose you would change your mind if I told you I don’t have the answers. But I think that of the two of us, I am less doctrinaire, and less inclined to place faith in leaders.

I don’t suppose you would change your mind if I told you I don’t have the answers.

That you don’t have the answers, I’ve been trying to point out for some time. That you don’t know my mind save how you think you affect it, I’ve also tried to point out, and you remain completely clueless about. You have no answers about what I think, Mark, because you don’t know what I think. You simply assume you do and go from there.

But I think that of the two of us, I am less doctrinaire, and less inclined to place faith in leaders.

Less doctrinaire? Don’t make me laugh. You are the rank and file of older non-conformism, a one note instrument of regurgitated liberal canon. Less inclined to place faith in our leaders? That I will agree with. It’s only your non-conformist doctrines that tell you that there is a moral value judgment to made about that fact.

I am under restraint here, not willing to call you the names that come to mind and for which you are so richly worthy.

Here’s how it works: If you think you are of your own mind and own opinions, and that no one thinks for you, then you are a perfect candidate for propaganda. I have said many times that propaganda gets us all in some way, and that the only defense is to realize our vulnerability. I am vulnerable.

I further believe that there is no ideology that encapsulates the world adequately. For that reason, I call myself a “European-style socialist” not because I am a great believer in socialism, as I am not, but rather only because what they are doing over there appeaers to work much better than what we do here.

Finally, all of us look upstream for food, and original thoughts are rare. But we all have to make value judgments about the quality of leadership available to us, and for that must use our own minds and experience. Based on that, I find most Democrats to be sorely deficient, even dishonest.

That I can make that judgment and you cannot simply means that I am less susceptible to manipulation than you, or so I perceive myself to be. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t see much in you that turns me on. You’re just another self-absorbed pseudo intellectual.

That I can make that judgment and you cannot simply means that I am less susceptible to manipulation than you, or so I perceive myself to be. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t see much in you that turns me on. You’re just another self-absorbed pseudo intellectual.

Now I’m laughing. What *you* see that turns *you* on about anything doesn’t interest me in the least. To think any should care is the definition of “self-absorbed pseudo intellectual”.

we all have to make value judgments about the quality of leadership available to us, and for that must use our own minds and experience. Based on that, I find most Democrats to be sorely deficient, even dishonest.

Not that your narcissistic self will ever believe such, but so do I. Kindly remember that we may have different ideas of what is “most”. What’s truly funny is that you can’t see that anyone else might have that view. You’re so adamant about it that you fabricate the opinions and thoughts of others to fit your delusions.

Here’s what I do know. Most < Damn Near All. 'Liar' and 'incompetent' come packaged with the Republican party endorsement.

Now, go play with your Democrat friends, kitten.

Sorry, kitten. It’s more fun to toss you around like the empty shell you are.

yeah, looks like that billion dollar price tag for a couple days of “security” was really worth it.

it’s too bad the folks on your side are so greedy and stupid, swede. y’all just don’t seem to understand that the austerity measures being proposed at the G8/G20 are going to squeeze everyone but the insulated wealthy who are siphoning our money for their risky, bordering-on-criminal behavior.

at some point people in this country are going to get tired of being squeezed and break free of the tea party corral, swede. and at some point the behavior of our corrupt leaders and parasitic industries and soulless banksters will get so obscene, violently attacking their precious bottom line will be all that’s left for the peasants to do.

maybe you think you’re immune, or maybe you think “it can’t happen here”, but if you’re thinking at all, you have to really start wondering what the hell republicans are going to do for you that will make the atmosphere in this country any less volatile.

membership to the gated fiefdoms patrolled by blackwater will be very expensive. can you afford it, swede?

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

Rand was likely a sociopath, judging by her personal behavior. And typical for her followers as well as her, she refused to appear on contested forums. She described “socialism” as it really existed in the Soviet Union. These days when we describe “free markets” as they really exist, you and the rest of her followers are as blind as anyone.

I am not tossing stones here, compadre. Rand was weird – anti social, indifferent to suffering. She thought charity was selfishness, that sexual attraction was misguided. Her husband drank himself to death as she carried on an open affair with Nathaniel Branden, right in front of his wife. Those who disagreed with her in any way were shunned and banished.